# 3 S.C.R. 118 STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD v. PRASAR BHARTI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 3 S.C.R. 118
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5252 of2016
- **Bench:** A.K. Sikri, Prafulla C. Pant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/3-s-c-r-118-star-sports-india-pvt-ltd-v-prasar-bharti-ors-31132
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar
Bharati) Act, 2007 - ss. 3, 2 (b), 2(h) - Sports Broadcast Signals
(Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharti) Rules, 2007 - rr. 5, 2(b),
3 - Mandatory sharing of certain sports broadcasting signals -
Obligations of a Television Broadcasting Organisation - Scope of
- Appellant shared live broadcast signal of a sporting event-world
feed with Prasar Bharati - Inclusion of certain enhancing
"features" such Hawk-eye, ball delivery speed reference, umpire
naming graphics, player statistics, score cards, match summary
graphics, replay graphics etc - Such features contained logos of
the event sponsors known as "On-Screen Credits" - Logos of
advertisers contained in the 'world feed' shared by appellant with
Prasar Bharti, if amounts to advertisement - Held: Logos are
commercials of the ~ponsors which would be treated as not on~v
advertisements but commercial advertisements - Word 'its' in s. 3
cannot be given limited meaning by confining it to advertisements
only of broadcasting service provider - Signals to be shared with
Prasar Bharati by content rights owner or holder are to be the best
feed that is provided to broadcast service provider in India and has
to be 'free from commercial advertisements - ICC which included
those advertisements/logos, the feeds have to be without those logos/
advertisements - If advertisements are also to be included in the
signals, there has to be sharing of the revenue - When live
broadcasting signal is shared containing advertisements, those
advertisements have much larger viewership because of its telecast/
broadcast on Prasar Bharati, rei·enue thereof is to be shared between
the Broadcaster and Prasar Bharti.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not denied by the appellant that the logos
118
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
are of the event sponsors, known as 'On-Screen Credits' in
industry parlance. The appellant has it'ielf shown the photographs.
No doubt, such logos or On-Screen Credits may appear at the
time of featuring replays like ball delivery speed and when a player
gets out either when he is bowled, run out or caught or they are
shown while depicting player statistics, scoreboard, match
summary, graphs, etc. Nonetheless, these are the advertisements
of the sponsors like Pepsi, LG, Fly Emirates, Reli.ance, etc. These
sponsors have entered into arrangement for showing their logo
on the occasions referred. It is also not in dispute that these
sponsors pay for such On-Screen Credits. Insofar as such
sponsors are concerned, their motive in giving these logos to be
shown on Television is crystal clear, viz. it is intended to advertise
their company names for commercial motives in mind. These arc,
thus, commercials of the sponsors which would clearly be treated
as not only advertisements but commercial advertisements. Once
it is held that what is shown are advertisements, the question as
to whether these advertisements are shown because of some
arrangement between the organisers of the tournament and the
sponsors or as a result of arrangement between the broadcasters,
i.e. the appellant, and the sponsors is immaterial. Section 3 of
the Sports Act does not make any distinction between the
aforesaid two kinds of advertisements. What is prescribed, in no
nncertain terms, is that sharing of the live broadcasting signal
has to be without advertisements. [Para 27] [140-H; 141-A-D]
1.2 On a plain reading of Section 3 of the Sports Act, it is
accepted that the obligation to share such sports broadcasting
signals is upon the following persons: (i) content rights owner;
(ii) content holder; and (iii) television or radio broadcasting
service provider. Any of these categories of persons arc not
allowed to carry a live television broadcast on: (i)' any cable or
direct-to-home network; (ii) radio commentary broadcast in India,
if such television broadcast or radio commentary broadcast
happens to be of sporting events which is of nati

## Text

_Characters 0–39,984 of 60,651. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39984 for what follows._

A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 118
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.
v.
PRASAR BHARTI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5252 of2016)
MAY27,2016
[A.K. SIKRI AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar
Bharati) Act, 2007 - ss. 3, 2 (b), 2(h) - Sports Broadcast Signals
(Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharti) Rules, 2007 - rr. 5, 2(b),
3 - Mandatory sharing of certain sports broadcasting signals -
Obligations of a Television Broadcasting Organisation - Scope of
- Appellant shared live broadcast signal of a sporting event-world
feed with Prasar Bharati - Inclusion of certain enhancing
"features" such Hawk-eye, ball delivery speed reference, umpire
naming graphics, player statistics, score cards, match summary
graphics, replay graphics etc - Such features contained logos of
the event sponsors known as "On-Screen Credits" - Logos of
advertisers contained in the 'world feed' shared by appellant with
Prasar Bharti, if amounts to advertisement - Held: Logos are
commercials of the ~ponsors which would be treated as not on~v
advertisements but commercial advertisements - Word 'its' in s. 3
cannot be given limited meaning by confining it to advertisements
only of broadcasting service provider - Signals to be shared with
Prasar Bharati by content rights owner or holder are to be the best
feed that is provided to broadcast service provider in India and has
to be 'free from commercial advertisements - ICC which included
those advertisements/logos, the feeds have to be without those logos/
advertisements - If advertisements are also to be included in the
signals, there has to be sharing of the revenue - When live
broadcasting signal is shared containing advertisements, those
advertisements have much larger viewership because of its telecast/
broadcast on Prasar Bharati, rei·enue thereof is to be shared between
the Broadcaster and Prasar Bharti.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not denied by the appellant that the logos
118
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
are of the event sponsors, known as 'On-Screen Credits' in
industry parlance. The appellant has it'ielf shown the photographs.
No doubt, such logos or On-Screen Credits may appear at the
time of featuring replays like ball delivery speed and when a player
gets out either when he is bowled, run out or caught or they are
shown while depicting player statistics, scoreboard, match
summary, graphs, etc. Nonetheless, these are the advertisements
of the sponsors like Pepsi, LG, Fly Emirates, Reli.ance, etc. These
sponsors have entered into arrangement for showing their logo
on the occasions referred. It is also not in dispute that these
sponsors pay for such On-Screen Credits. Insofar as such
sponsors are concerned, their motive in giving these logos to be
shown on Television is crystal clear, viz. it is intended to advertise
their company names for commercial motives in mind. These arc,
thus, commercials of the sponsors which would clearly be treated
as not only advertisements but commercial advertisements. Once
it is held that what is shown are advertisements, the question as
to whether these advertisements are shown because of some
arrangement between the organisers of the tournament and the
sponsors or as a result of arrangement between the broadcasters,
i.e. the appellant, and the sponsors is immaterial. Section 3 of
the Sports Act does not make any distinction between the
aforesaid two kinds of advertisements. What is prescribed, in no
nncertain terms, is that sharing of the live broadcasting signal
has to be without advertisements. [Para 27] [140-H; 141-A-D]
1.2 On a plain reading of Section 3 of the Sports Act, it is
accepted that the obligation to share such sports broadcasting
signals is upon the following persons: (i) content rights owner;
(ii) content holder; and (iii) television or radio broadcasting
service provider. Any of these categories of persons arc not
allowed to carry a live television broadcast on: (i)' any cable or
direct-to-home network; (ii) radio commentary broadcast in India,
if such television broadcast or radio commentary broadcast
happens to be of sporting events which is of national importance
unless such content rights owner or content holder or
broadcasting service provider simultaneously shares the live
broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati to enable Prnsar Bharati
to re-transmit the same on its terrestrial networks and DTH
networks in such manner and on such terms and conditions as
119
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
120
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
may be specified. [Para 28) [141-E-H; 142-A-B)
1.3 It becomes apparent from the reading of the Preamble
of the Act that purpose is to provide access to the largest number
of listeners and viewers, on a free to air basis, of sporting events
of national importance. This task is given to Prasar Bharati.
Notwithstanding more popularity which the private channels have
gained over a period of time, coverage of Prasar Bharati is far
more reaching insofar as Indian population is concerned as it
reaches almost every nook and corner of the country. Further
the radio as well as television broadcasting of Prasar Bharat is
free of cost. It is for this reason that the law in the form of Sports
Act is enacted in order to ensure that such sporting events of
national importance are made available to every citizen of this
country, irrespective of his/her financial conditions. Section 3,
thus, aims to achieve two purposes; to provide access to largest
number of listeners and viewers on a free to air basis. The principle
of purposive interpretation, in this context, meant that Prasar
Bharati was supposed to telecast these matches for the benefit
of general masses spread through out India, who otherwise do
not receive signals of private channels like the appellant or are
not having financial capacity to pay for these channels. Thus, it
was a larger public interest which was sought to be served and
noble objective was kept in mind while enacting the statute;
insofar as income that is generated from advertisements is
concerned, which are shown on television or broadcasted on radio,
the revenue thereof is to be shared between the Broadcaster
and Prasar llharati. The purpose is obvious. It is the broadcasting
service provider who is supposed to share the live broadcasting
signal with Prasar Bharati, which has the arrangements with the
advertisers and, thus, takes money from those who book their
advertisements to be broadcasted on television or radio.
However, when the signals are shared with Prasar Bharati enabling
it to simultaneously retransmit the same on its terrestrial
networks or DTH networks, the vicwership/audienee gets
multiplied as the reach is to much larger section of citizenry
through Prasar Bharati. Therefore, Section 3(1), in the first
instance, mandates that the sharing of live broadcasting signals
with Prasar Bharati has to be 'without its advertisements'.
Exception is, however, made in sub-section (2) of Section 3 which
STAR SPORTS !NOIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
enables the broadcasting service provider to even share the
contents along with advertisements, but subject to the condition
that there has to be a sharing of revenue in the proportion
prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 3. Thus, when live
broadcasting signal is shared containing advertisements, those
advertisements have much larger viewership because of its
telecast/broadcast on Prasar Bharati. The benefit of
advertisement in such a case would accrue to those who have
booked the advertisements and the service provider, in such an
eventuality would definitely be in a position to charge much more
from the advertisers. It is a matter of common knowledge that
rates of advertisement go up when circulation thereof is enhanced.
The application of rule of purposive interpretation would go against
the appellant and in favour of the respondent. [Paras 31, 32) [142F-H; 143-A-H)
1.4 It becomes clear that the sharing of the signals has to be
without any advertisements and if the advertisements are also to
be included in the signals, there has to be sharing of the revenue.
The Attorney General rightly argued that the word 'its' cannot
be given limited meaning by confining it to advertisements only
of broadcasting service provider. Section 3 which starts with
negative covenant very expressly puts an embargo to all the three
categories mentioned therein, viz., content rights owner, (ii)
contents holder as well as (iii) television or radio broadcasting
service provider not to have television broadcast either through
cable or DTH and not to have any radio commentary broadcast
unless live broadcasting signal is shared simultaneously with
Prasar Bharnti. Examined in this hue, it becomes clear that the
words 'without its advertisements' which follow immediately after
the words 'unless it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting
signal' has to be given a meaning that such broadcasting signals
arc to be without advertisements, whether it is of the content
rights owner, content holder or that of television or radio
broadcasting service provider. It is made crystal clear by providing
the definition of 'content rights owner' or 'holder' in Ruic 2(b) of
the Rules, 2007. Ruic 3(3) takes the issue beyond any pale of
doubt when it mentions that the signals to be shared with Prasar
Bharati by the content rights owner or holder arc to be the best
feed that is provided to broadcast service provider in India and
has to be 'free from commercial advertisements'. Tims, even if
121
A
H
c
D
E
F
G
H
122
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
it is ICC which has included those advertisements/logos, the feeds
have to be without those logos/advertisements inasmuch as
nobody can dispute that the content rights owner are content
holder, i.e, ICC in the instant case has included those logos/
advertisements from purely commercial angle. Thus, the
arrangement between the ICC and the appellant, is totally
inconsequential. [Para 33] (144-B-GJ
Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply
Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another
vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108:2011
(15) SCR 211; Davis vs. Sebastian (1999) 6 SCC
604: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 612; V.B.Raju vs. Union
of India and Others 1980 (Supp) SCC 513: 1981
SCR 599; Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, Govt. of India and Others vs. Cricket
Association of Bengal and Other(l995) 2 SCC 161:
1995 (1) SCR 1036 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2011 (15) SCR 211
referred to
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 612 referred to
1981 SCR 599
1995 (1) SCR 1036
referred to
referred to
Para 12
Para 13
Para 14
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5252
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03. I 0.2013 in WPC No. 3611
of 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, A.M., Singhvi, Sudhir Chandra, Arv ind Datar,
Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Advs., Sai Krishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra,
Ms. Sneha Jain, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Mani sh Kumar, Shiv am Singh,
L. Ahmed, Ms. Sarni Dutt, Ms. Akanksha Munjal, Gopal Singh, Nikhil
Nayyar, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Radhalakshmi, Harshvardhan Jha, Adarsh
Upadhyay, Radha Rangaswamy, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Abhinav Mukerji,
Gopal Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. SJKRI, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is filed against the impugned judgment dated
October 3, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 3611 of 2013 which was filed by the appellant
herein. The appeal raises the issue regarding the scope of obligations of
a Television Broadcasting Organisation under the Sports Broadcasting
Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as "Sports Act"). We may mention at the outset that under
Section 3 of the Sports Act, a Television Broadcasting Organisation is
prohibited from carrying the live television broadcast of a sporting event
of national importance on cable or Direct-to-Home (DTH) networks in
India, unless it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting signals, without
its advertisements, with the Prasar Bharati (respondent No. I) to enable
it to retransmit the same on its terrestrial and DTH network.
3. In view of the above statutory obligation, the appellant herein
sharing the live broadcast signals with respodnent No. I Prasar Bharati
and there is no dispute about the same. The appellant, as a television
broadcaster, is allowed to insert advertisements on its avenue and recoup
its advertisements during a break in live play at various poi11ts during
broadcast, such as, during breaks between overs in a cricket match, at
the fall of a wicket, during drink breaks etc. These advertisements are
not included while sharing the live broadcasting signals with Prasar
Bharati. No dispute about this as well.
4. The problem has, however, arisen in respect of the contents
shared. with Prasar Bharati which, at times, include some kind of
advertisements. According to the appellant, the broadcast signal of a
spo11ing event provided by an event organiser, known as the "world
feed" (as the same feed is provided to all broadcasters the world over),
includes the broadcast of the live play of the event as it happens on the
field as also certain "features" which enhance a view's experience, such
a Hawk-eye, ball delivery speed reference, umpire naming graphics,
player statistics, score cards, match summary graphics, replay graphics
etc. These features are inse11ed at the site by or at the instance of the
event organiser. Such features invariably contain logos of the event
sponsors known as "On-Screen Credits" in industry parlance. These
"On-Screen Credits" are, however, included while sharing the live
broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati. Prasar Bharati has taken
123
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
124
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
exception to the aforesaid inclusion treating the same as "advertisements"
and, thus, turning it as violative of Section 3(1) of the Sports Act. The
appellant, on the other hand, has taken the position that in terms of
Section 3( 1) of the Sports Act, the obligation of a television Broadcaster,
i.e., the appellant, is limited to sharing of the world feed which it receives
from the event organizer/owner on as as-is-where-is basis without
advertisements of the television broadcaster, and that the appellant is
not obliged to remove any On-Screen Credits inserted by the event
organizer. The appellant contested the stand of Prasar Bharati
(respondent No. 1) that it is the duty of the appellant to ensure that the
sponsor logos/On-Screen Credits present ion the world feed, which ios
created by or at the instance of the organizer of the event, have to also
be removed by the appellant.
5. By the impugned judgment, the High Comi has found favour
with the contention raised by Prasar Bharati and this view of the High
Court is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. The !is
has travelled to this Court in following factual background.
6. The appellant (formerly ESPN Software India Private Limited)
is the sole and exclusive distributor of some sports channels in India.
These include ESPN, Star Sports, Star Sports 2 and Star Cricket. These
channels telecast various sporting events such as ICC Cricket, BCCI
Cricket, Formula 1, Barclays Premier League Football, ICC Cricket World
Cup and Wimbledon etc. for telecasting these events, the appellant enters
into a contract with the sporting events organizers. These broadcasting
rights have also been acquired from International Cricket Council (ICC)
to broadcast cricket events organised by ICC for the Indian territory.
7. Keeping in mind the mandate of Section 3 of the Sports Act. the
appellant informed respondent no. I, i.e., Prasar Bharati on March 07,
2013 that it would be sharing the live signals with Prasar Bharati of
cricket matches organised by the ICC. It was followed by another
letter dated March 14, 2013 wherein the appellant stated that such live
signals, which the appellant would be sharing with Prasar Bharati, shall
contain certain added features comprising of commercial elements.
Prasar Bharati replied vide letter dated April 06, 2013 informing the
appellant that under the law, appellant's obligations is to share the signals
without any commercials. The appellant responded by stating that under
the contract with the sporting event organizers, the appellant was
receiving the feed containing certain advertisements by the organizer of
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
[A.K. oIKRI, J.]
the sporting events and, therefore, the signals were transmitted as it is,
including those advertisements which were not the advertisements booked
by the appellant. It was also stated that as per Section 3 of the Sports
Act, appellant was to share the live broadcast signal as it is, i.e., the
manner in which it was received by it from the copyright owner of the
broadcast (the sporting event organizer) and, therefore, it did not amount
to any violation of Section 3 of the Sports Act. It was also contended
that the appellant had no control over the live signals so received. Since
both the parties remain adamant about their respective position, the
appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by way of writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking following declarations
and reliefs:
"(a) a declaration that under the provisions of the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, the appellant shall offer to simultaneously
share with the respondent no. I the same live broadcasting signals
of sporting events of national importance as provided by the
appellant to other broadcast network service providers in India,
without insertion of the appellant's commercial advertisements;
(b) a declaration that the live broadcasting signals of sporting
events of national importance shared by the appellant with the
respondent no. I under Section 3 of the Act shall be the best feed
as received from site with all features inclusive ofany commercials
of the event owner and without insertion of any commercial
advertisements by the appellant.
(c) a writ of certiorari to quash and set-aside the communication
dated 06111 April, 2013 issued by the respondent no. 1;
125
A
B
c
D
E
(d) hold and declare Rule 5 of the Sports Rules in violative of
F
Section 3 of the Act and ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution;
( e) Hold and declare that upon the appellant offering to share t he
world feed of the relevant matches of the Champions Trophy
2013 without its commercial advertisement with the respondent,
it has discharged its obligation under Section 3 of the Act; and
o
(f) Such other writ, order or direction as the court may deem fit in
the interest of justice."
8. Insofar as vi res of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2007 is concerned, the
High Court repelled the contention of the said Rule being ultra vires the
provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act with the reason that this Rule
H
126
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
1-1
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016] 3 S.C.R.
simply obliges the content right owner or the holder or a broadcast service
provider to comply with the statutory provisions of the Act, which in any
case was the obligation of the broadcaster even if Rule 5 was not to
exist. Thereafter, the High Court came to the fulcrum of the dispute
and noted that insofar as plain language of Section 3 of the Sports Act is
concerned, it categorically casts an obligation on the broadcaster to share
the life broadcasting signals without its advertisements, with Prasar
Bharati. We would produce the text of Section 3 at this juncture:
"3. Mandatory sharing of ce1iain sports broadcasting signals -
(I) No content rights owner or holder and no television or radio
broadcasting service provider shall carry a live television broadcast
on any cable or Direct-top-Home network or radio commentary
broadcast in India of sporting events ofnational importance, unless
it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting signal, without its
adve1iisements, with the Prasar Bharati to enable them to retransmit the same on its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-Home
networks in such manner and on such terms and conditions as
may be specified.
(2) The terms and conditions under sub-section (I) shall also
provide that the advertisement revenue sharing between the
content rights owner or holder and the Prasar Bharati shall be in
the ratio of not Jess than 75:25 in case of television coverage and
50:50 in case of radio coverage.
(3) The Central Government may specify a percentag_e of the
revenue received by the Prasar Bharati under sub-section (2),
which shall be utilised by the Prasar Bharati for broadcasting other
sporting events."
The High Court noted that the arguments of the appel !ant was that
the contents were to be shared 'without its_ advertisements' which meant
no advertisements of the Broadcaster and, therefore, this expression did
not include advertisements inserted in the feed by the event organizer.
This argument is, however, rejected in the following manner:
"The expression 'unless it simultaneously shares the live
broadcasting signal, without its advertisements, with the Prasar
Bharati .... ' with reference to the two words 'its advertisements'
in the phrase, admits of the phrase having only one meaning and
not admitting two. The only one meaning that the live broadcast
signals have to be without any advertisements for the reason the
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
rules of English grammar guide us that the subject of (the single
sentence) sub-section (1) of Section 3, is 'the content right owner
or holder or radio broadcasting service provider' and the three
words 'without its advertisements' are a sub-clause constituting a
condition and since the three words immediately follow the words
'live broadcasting signal' they have to be, plainly read, as a condition
concerning the live broadcast service provider; meaning thereby,
whosoever airs a live television broadcast of sporting events of
national importance must share the same without any
advertisements insetied with Prasar Bharati."
9. The submission of the appellants that it had no control over the
live signals which included the advertisements of the event organizer
was also dismissed with following observations:
"We need not discuss the effect of the petitioner having no control
over the live signals and the effect of the. legislative provision i.e.
Section 3( 1 ), casting an obligation upon the petitioner which is
impossible of being performed by the petitioner or obliges the
petitioner to violate its contractual obligations with the copyright
owner of the broadcast, for the reason the same would relate to
the vi res of Section 3(1) of the Act; and we highlight once again
. that the vires of Section 3( 1) of the Act has not been cha I lenged."
The aforesaid is the central theme of the impugned judgment of the
High Court. Though, in addition, the High Court has touched upon certain
other peripheral aspects as well, but that need not be mentioned at this
stage.
10. The arguments which were advanced by Dr. A.M. Singhvi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant are stated in
summarised form hereinbelow:
(I) In the first instance, it was argued that 'On-Screen Credits'
put in by the event organizers themselves cannot be treated as
advertisements at all. As these features were the integral part of the
feeds that the appellant was receiving from the organizers for the purpose
of broadcasting. These credits were logos of the event sponsors whic;h
were appearing on the screen as per the agreement between the event
sponsors and the event organizers. Following examples are given by tbe
appellants:
127
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
129
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
WEST IMOlES 11 NEW lE.A.lANO
-·-----
MATCH SUMMARY
""'',,"
.· DSSMIHI
·• ·s MIJRAUfH.ulAH
~='11:,.,-.rl
M SA.MUUS
. 0 811.AVO
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
A
In the aforesaid photographs LG, Fly Emirates, Reliance and Pepsi
are the logos of the event sponsors which are embedded in the feeds
that are received.
(ll) Taking the aforesaid argument further, it was submitted that in
any case the appellant gets those logos embedded as it is and has not
B
control over the same. It was argued that while sharing the signals with
Prasar Bharati, there was no mechanism or methodology to remove
these logos.
(Ill) It was submitted that in the aforesaid context, the said logos
could not be treated as commercial advertisements and the purpose of
c
Section 3 of the Sports Act was not to share only those kinds of
advertisements which were commercial in nature, i.e., book by the
Broadcaster/appellant from which the appellant had received the revenue
and generated income. In other words, it was argued that having regard
to purposive interpretation which was to be given to the expression
'without its advertisements' the aforesaid logos would not come within
D · the mischief of the aforesaid expression. It is in the same hue, the
argument of Dr. Singhvi was that not only those advertisements which
were inserted at the instance of the broadcasting organisation carrying
live signal in India, were required to be removed as per Section 3 of the
Sports Act, it was emphatically emphasised that broadcasting
E
organizations, like appellants, are only authorised by respective event
owners, as also under law, to insert advertisements during normal and
routine breaks in the live play of an event/match, such as end of overs,
fall ofwicket(s), lunch break, drinks break, injury, rain etc.
F
G
H
11. It was also argued that there is a distinction between the event/
match as played and the event/match as broadcast. The broadcast of
an event/match contains not on'ly the live event/match as played on the
field but also certain enhancement in the form of features. These features
aid the viewer in better understanding and appreciating the game and as
such enhance the viewership experience. These features/On-Screen
Credits are as much a part of the broadcast of an event as the play of
the event itself. As per the appellant, the obligation under Section 3 is to
simultaneously share the live 'broadcasting signals' which are received
by an entity carrying the television broadcast in India and not just the live
'event' itself. However, as a result of the impugned judgment, the
appellant will be·wmpelled to share the live 'event' and not the live
'broadcast signal' of the event. The appellant submits that it is not
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
[A.K. SIKRI, J.]
practically feasible for a broadcaster to remove the on-screen credits
inserted by the event organizer in the live signals and simultaneously
share the same signals (as provided to other service providers such as
cable and private DTH networks) with Prasar Bharati. In the past
when the appellant was compelled to provide a clean feed, the appellant
was constrained to procure a separate feed at a considerable cost as it
was not practically feasible for the appellant to remove the insertions of
the event organizer while simultaneously sharing the same feed with
Prasar Bharati. The appellant submits that the mandate of the Act is
simultaneous sharing and not procuring and providing a separate live
feed to Prasar Bharati.
12. Dr. Singhvi laid emphasis on the words 'simultaneously shares
the live broadcasting signals' and submitted that since the obligation was
to share it 'simultaneously' i.e., 'as it is' the sharing of the signals with
logos coming from the organizers were not supposed to be removed.
Another submission of Dr. Singhvi was that Section 3 was expropriate
in nature, i.e. contra proferantem. ln order to buttress this argument,
the learned senior counsel argued that the purport of sharing the signals
without advertisement was that ifthe advertisements are also included
along with the other contents, the Broadcaster becomes the beneficiary
of having much larger audience and viewers and, therefore, in such
cases Prasar Bharati wanted its share in such advertisement. In the
instant case when the appellant had not earned any income from these
advertisements as these were not booked by the appellant, there was no
question of sharing alleged income. Reference was made to the judgment
of this Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply
Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another vs. Sri Seetaram
Rice Mi/11 wherein rule of purposive interpretation was explained in the
following manner:
"46. "Purposive construction" is certainly a cardinal principle of
interpretation. Equally true is that no rule of interpretation should
either be overstated or overextended. Without being overextended
or overstated, this rule of interpretation can be applied to the
present case. It points to the conclusion that an interpretation which
would attain the object and purpose of the Act has to be given
precedence over any other interpretation which may not further
the cause of the statute. The development of law is particularly
1 (2012i 2 sec 10s
131
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
132
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 3 S.C.R.
liberated both from literal and blinkered interpretation, though to a
limited extent.
4 7. The precepts of interpretation of contractual documents have
also undergone a wide-ranged variation in the recent times. The
result has been subject to one important exception to assimilate
the way in which such documents are interpreted by Judges on
the common sense principle by which any serious utterance would
be interpreted by ordinary life. In other words, the common sense
view relating to the implication and impact of provisions is the
relevant consideration for interpreting a term of document so as
to achieve temporal proximity of the end result.
48. Another similar rule is the rule of practical interpretation. This
test can be effectually applied to the provisions of a statute of the
present kind. It must be understood that an interpretation which
upon application of the provisions at the ground reality, would
frustrate the very law should not be accepted against the common
sense view which will fu11her such application.
49. Once the court decides that it has to take a purposive
construction as opposed to textual construction, then the legislative
purpose sought to be achieved by such an interpretation has to be
kept in mind. We have already indicated that keeping in view the
legislative scheme and the provisions of the 2003 Act, it will be
appropriate to adopt the approach of purposive construction on
the facts of this case. We have also indicated above that the
provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act are intended to cover
the cases over and above the cases which would be specifically
covered under the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act."
13. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the
judgment of this case in Davis vs. Sebastim11, wherein it was held as
under:
"8. Now, what is the meaning of the expression "personal use" in
G
sub-section (8) It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that
words in a statute shall be given their natural, ordinary meaning;
nothing should be added to them nor should any word be treated
as otiose. Two comprehensive expressions "additional
accommodation" and "personal use" are employed in sub-section
----
H
'(1999) 6 sec 604
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
[A.K. S!KRI, J.]
(8). The expression "additional accommodation" takes in both
residential as well as non-residential buildings. "Personal use" is
also an expression of wide amplitude. There is nothing in the subsection which restricts the import of that expression. The said
requirement of sub-section (8) will be complied with on the
satisfaction of the Controller about bona fide need of the additional
accommodation for personal use of the landlord. To what use the
additional accommodation should be put, is the choice of the
landlord. In the case ofa non-residential building whether a new
business should be set up in the additional accommodation or
whether it should be used for expansion of the existing business,
is left entirely to the option of the landlord. This, being the
intendment of the legislature, the court cannot impose any
restriction with regard to the use of the additional accommodation
from which the eviction of the tenant is sought."
14. It was next contended that the word 'its' occurring in the
expression 'without its advertisements' was referable to the Broadcaster
and, therefore, on the application of the rule ofliteral construction, those
logos which were embedded by the event organizers could not be treated
as the advertisements of the appellant. Dr. Singhvi also endeavored to
take solace from V.B. Raju Vs. Union of India mu/ Otllers3 in support
of his contention that otherwise the word 'its' would be rendered otiose,
ifthe aforesaid interpretation as suggested by the appellant is not made
applicable.
15. The aforesaid submissions of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant were countered by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney
General for India. At the outset, he drew our attention to the prayers
made in the writ petition and, in particular, prayers (a) and (b) and
submitted that these involve disputed question of facts, viz., whether the
appellant, by sharing the signals/world feed was simultaneously passing
advertisements therein as well? And whether under the given
circumstances, such advertisements were of commercial nature and were
offensive of Section 3 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder? He
submitted that the appellant was trivializing the issue by giving it the
nomenclature of' logo' but the fact remains that those logos were of the
advertisers/sponsors who had given it purely for commercial purposes.
The learned Attorney General referred to the counter affidavit which
'wso (Suppl sec 513
133
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
134
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
was filed in the High Court wherein a specific stand was taken by Prasar
Bharati that it is the appellant who is inserting commercials in the feed
and not ICC, as is clear from the following averments made in the counter
affidavit:
"Without prejudice to what has been stated above, it is submitted
that ion fact it is the appellant who is inserting commercials in the
feed and not ICC. The answering respondent understands that it
is the appellant who is producing the feed for and on behalf of
ICC from the ground. The feed as is generated from the ground
is free of all commercials. It is thereafter that the commercials
are inserted. It is another matter that the insertion of commercials
. takes hardly a second but the assertion of the appellant that it has
not control over the insertion is clearly incorrect."
He then referred to para 26 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein the
aforesaid assertion of the respondent was denied by the appellant. He,
thus, argued that these are the disputed questions of facts which could
not be gone in a writ petition, and as a consequence in the present appeal,
his submission was that ifthe appellant wanted to raise pure legal question
it had to be decided on the premise that the appellant had inserted those
advertisements and insofar as Prasar Bharati is concerned, it had received
the feeds with the said advertisements and that was the only basis on
which the issue at hand could be decided by applying the legal provisions.
16. Mr. Rohtagi then referred to the preamble to the Sports Act,
2007 highlighting the object with which the said Act was enacted and
submitted that it is that spirit and objective which has to be kept in mind
while construing the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Act.
17. Insofar as interpretation that is to be given to the word 'its'
occurring in the expression 'without its advertisements', he submitted
that Section 3 mentions three categories, namely, (a) content right owner;
(b) holder; and (c) service provider. According to him, the word 'its'
was relatable to any of the aforesaid three categories and, therefore,
even if it is presumed that the logos/advertisements in the world feed
are inserted by the event organizers, that also falls within the mischief of
the aforesaid provision. Basic idea, according to him, was that the feed
generated has to be free of ads.
18. Mr. Rohtagi also referred to the provisions of sub-section (2)
of Section 3 of the Act to highlight the purpose of sharing the revenue
STAR SPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. PRASAR BHARTI
[A.K. SlKRJ, J.]
which was in the ratio of75:25, i.e., 75% for the Broadcaster and 25%
revenue was to be given to Prasar Bharati. His submission that the
statutory provision was enacted to compensate Prasar Bharati for
showing the advertisements which were booked by the Broadcaster or
even event sponsors who had earned money therefrom.
19. Mr. Rohtagi also took aid of Rule 2(b) of the Rules for
interpreting Section 3 appropriately and submitted that the words 'content
rights owner or holder' clearly meant all the three aforesaid categories.
In view of Rule 5 of the Rules, he argued that it was the responsibility of
the appellant to take care of ICC even if it is presumed that ICC as
event organizer had given world feed in that manner.
20. Proceeding therefrom, the next argument of the learned Attorney
General was that such a provision cannot be treated as expropriately, as
the revenue was shared between the parties.
21. Concluding his submissions, Mr. Rohtagi referred to the judgment
of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcastinf:,
Govt. of India and Others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and
Otlter' wherein it was held that airwaves are public property. He
submitted that paragraph 78 which was reliedupon by the appellant had
to be read in conjunction with paragraph 79. Both these paras read as
under:
"78. There is no doubt that since the airwaves/frequencies are a
public property and are also limited, they have to be used in the
best interest of the society and this can be done either by a central
authority by establishing its own broadcasting network or regulating
the grant of licences to other agencies, including the private
135
A
B
c
D
E
agencies. What is further, the electronic media is the most powerful
F
media both because of its audio-visual impact and its widest reach
covering the section of the society where the print media does not
reach. The right to use the airwaves and the content of the
programmes, therefore, needs regulation for balancing it and as
well as to prevent monopoly of information and views relayed,
G
which is a potential danger flowing from the concentration of the
right to broadcast/telecast in the hands either of a central agency
or of few private affluent broadcasters. That is why the need to
have a central agency representative of all sections of the society
'(1995J 2 sec 161
H
136
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
free from control both of the Government and the dominant
influential sections of the society. This is not disputed. But to
contend that on that account the restrictions to be imposed on the
right under Article 19(1 )(a) should be in addition to those
permissible under Article 19(2) and dictated by the use of public
resources in the best interests of the society at large, is to
misconceive both the content of the freedom of speech and
expression and the problems posed by the element of public
property in, and the alleged scarcity of, the frequencies as well as
by the wider reach of the media. If the right to freedom of speech
and expression includes the right to disseminate information to as
wide a section of the population as is possible, the access which
enables the right to be so exercised is also an integral part of the
said right.